Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 60 of 1983, decided on 11th October, 1983.

‑‑ S. 5 read with Schedule‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), Ss. 2(ii)(a) & 7‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Dissolution of marriage‑Entire facts and circumstances of case taken into consideration by District Judge dissolving marriage and there had been no misreading of evidence, legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in order of District Judge ‑Petitioner taking second wife without consent of first wife‑Second wife, entitled to seek dissolution of marriage‑Order of District Judge dissolving marriage upheld.

Art. 9‑Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S. 2(ii)(a) . Writ jurisdiction‑Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, held, can decide it rightly or wrongly and mere fact that decision was erroneous would not render it without jurisdiction‑Interference under writ jurisdiction declined.‑[Jurisdiction].

Malik Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 11th October, 1983.

‑The facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the suit for dissolution of marriage brought by Mst. Gul TaJ (respondent No. 2) against the petitioner before the Judge Family Court, Mansehra, was dismissed on 31‑7‑1982. The learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had taken a second wife with the consent of respondent No. Z and in the absence of any evidence of cruelty of conduct on the part of the petitioner, the plaintiff was not entitled .to the decree prayed for.

2. Mst. Gul Taj (respondent No. 2) feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Mansehra which was accepted on 28‑ ‑1983 and the decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the plaintiff (respondent No. 2) against the petitioner was granted. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was unrebutted evidence on the tile to prove that the petitioner had contracted the second marriage without the consent of the plaintiff: It was further held that there was also sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff. was not meted out equal treatment with the second wife. By referring to the report (Exh. P. W. 1/1) lodged by the plaintiff to the police against the petitioner blaming him for contracting the second marriage and depriving her of her valuables, it was found that the plaintiff had developed strong aversion for the petitioner and there was no possibility of the plaintiff living a peaceful life with the petitioner.

3. The only point urged by the learned counsel is that the decree for dissolution of marriage was not justified, for, there was no convincing evidence to prove that the petitioner had contracted the second marriage without the consent of respondent No. 2. Similarly, there was no evidence to prove that respondent No. 2 was not meted out equal treatment by the petitioner‑with his second wife and there was no evidence as well to prove cruelty on the part of the petitioner.

4. The question raised by the learned counsel essentially involves an, inquiry into the facts of the case. From the judgment of the learned District; Judge it is clear that the entire facts and circumstances of the case were duly taken into consideration. The learned counsel failed to point out any' misreading of the evidence: The fact that the petitioner has taken the second) wife without the consent of respondent No: 2 to contravention of the provi sions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, would entitle her to seek dissolution of marriage under section 2 (ii‑a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (Act VIII of 1939).

5. The learned counsel failed to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the order. It is not disputed that the learned District Judge had the necessary jurisdiction in the matter and we do not feel convinced that he has arrived at an erroneous decision. Even if the decision was erroneous it is well‑established that a Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide al particular matter can decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that the decision was erroneous would not render it without jurisdiction. In Faqir Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Ismail and others (P L D 1983 S C 451), it was observed :-

"The question of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, has come under consideration in a number of cases of this Court and it has been repeatedly held that if a Court or Tribunal set up under the ordinary law has the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or. wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect, or is not one at which the High Court would have arrived, does not render the decision without jurisdiction.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition, being without any substance, is accordingly dismissed In limine.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.